Google to pay biggest FTC fine ever for tracking Safari users

Advertising cookies placed by "accident" have resulted in a $22.5 million fine.

Google has agreed to pay a $22.5 million civil penalty for installing tracking cookies on Safari by circumventing the default privacy settings in Apple's browser, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

The fine "is the largest penalty the agency has ever obtained for a violation of a Commission order," the FTC said on Thursday. The commission also said Google is required to "disable all the tracking cookies" that were at issue in the complaint. That part of the order is largely ceremonial, as Google already disabled the advertising cookies in February after claiming that they were spread by accident.

"In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads," the FTC said.

Google exploited a hole in Safari's privacy setting by placing a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain, which opened the door to all cookies including an advertising tracker "that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers." By misrepresenting how it would deploy cookies, Google violated an FTC settlement it signed in October 2011 due to deceptive privacy practices in the Google Buzz social network.

Although Google agreed to pay the $22.5 million fine, the settlement "does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated," the FTC said.

57 Reader Comments

They really do need to force companies to admit wrongdoing, whether or not the case was settled out of court. I'm so tired of companies doing shitty things, settling, and then claiming innocence. Does anyone even believe their nonsense?

So, if you have $22.5 million and a bucketload of lawyers you can do pretty much whatever you wish. This is such a joke. Until the fines start hitting these huge companies HARD in the wallet they will do as they please.

I wonder if the fine was in any way close to the amount of money that Google likely realized via that additional tracking information. Because if they made something like $200 million extra from those cookies being implemented, I doubt that they're all that upset over the fine.

Of the two major (Apple & Google) companies that have their technology act together, I'm *far* more wary of Google than Apple. Apple may like to present the user with "here's this thing. It's cool. You'll like it. No you can't do that", but Google's regard for its users is akin to the wolf's regard for the sheep. They're a food-source, and if it comes down to "us or them", Google's answer is a resounding "not us" (with prejudice). That's very much an evil^W^W a dangerous position for the world's most pre-eminent search engine company to take.

I wonder if the fine was in any way close to the amount of money that Google likely realized via that additional tracking information. Because if they made something like $200 million extra from those cookies being implemented, I doubt that they're all that upset over the fine.

it reminds me of when companies would improperly dispose of waste because the fines are cheaper than the cost of proper disposal.

I feel like fines for this kind of thing shouldn't be a fixed amount, but instead should be a percentage of the company's worth, or maybe any profits from the wrongdoings should be handed over in addition to the fine.

The brilliant thing is that google keeps doing all this kind of stuff over and over again and people still "like" them as if this company is really different because you know.. they SAY they are over and over again. Goddamn. Respect to them for disguising their marketing as something other than marketing.

So, if you have $22.5 million and a bucketload of lawyers you can do pretty much whatever you wish. This is such a joke. Until the fines start hitting these huge companies HARD in the wallet they will do as they please.

Damn straight, if companies or people were fined a certain percentage based upon their annual income, it would sting for them as it stings for you and me.

The brilliant thing is that google keeps doing all this kind of stuff over and over again and people still "like" them as if this company is really different because you know.. they SAY they are over and over again. Goddamn. Respect to them for disguising their marketing as something other than marketing.

I think you have to accept (or rather, realize) that all companies are inherently "evil." What distinguishes Google from other companies is that the products they freely provide to consumers come at the not-so-hidden price of privacy invasion. That's the trade off. There are no more surprises there.

Furthermore (and I'm speaking now out of ignorance and not indignation), I truly don't understand what people are so damn worried about. What information does Google have on you that nobody else does? What's the most immediate threat to you that Google poses that can't be solved by using Adblock? What's wrong with targeted ads anyway?

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

They really do need to force companies to admit wrongdoing, whether or not the case was settled out of court. I'm so tired of companies doing shitty things, settling, and then claiming innocence. Does anyone even believe their nonsense?

I believe this is more of a liability thing. The same reason the federal government does not generally issue apologies.

Seriously, these European liberals have got to stop financing their weak economy with fines on American companies! Oh, wait...

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist!

On-topic: glad to see the right to privacy being upheld. However, I don't know how broad this decision is. Ultimately it seems to resolve to Google having done something they said they wouldn't do. So it's more about deceptive practices than a right to privacy.

The brilliant thing is that google keeps doing all this kind of stuff over and over again and people still "like" them as if this company is really different because you know.. they SAY they are over and over again. Goddamn. Respect to them for disguising their marketing as something other than marketing.

I think you have to accept (or rather, realize) that all companies are inherently "evil." What distinguishes Google from other companies is that the products they freely provide to consumers come at the not-so-hidden price of privacy invasion. That's the trade off. There are no more surprises there.

Furthermore (and I'm speaking now out of ignorance and not indignation), I truly don't understand what people are so damn worried about. What information does Google have on you that nobody else does? What's the most immediate threat to you that Google poses that can't be solved by using Adblock? What's wrong with targeted ads anyway?

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

The brilliant thing is that google keeps doing all this kind of stuff over and over again and people still "like" them as if this company is really different because you know.. they SAY they are over and over again. Goddamn. Respect to them for disguising their marketing as something other than marketing.

I think you have to accept (or rather, realize) that all companies are inherently "evil." What distinguishes Google from other companies is that the products they freely provide to consumers come at the not-so-hidden price of privacy invasion. That's the trade off. There are no more surprises there.

Furthermore (and I'm speaking now out of ignorance and not indignation), I truly don't understand what people are so damn worried about. What information does Google have on you that nobody else does? What's the most immediate threat to you that Google poses that can't be solved by using Adblock? What's wrong with targeted ads anyway?

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

I want Google and other to respect the privacy setting I set in my browser. If I set no 3rd party cookies I don't want Google and others to bypass my settings. I set something no company should hack around my settings, no way, no how ever. You want me to change the setting offer me something extra to change it to something you want voluntarily or lump it.

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

A lot is wrong with targeted ads. The big deal is that Google purposely exploited a hole in Safari in order to track them to make money for advertisers without asking for consent, and all they got was a slap on the wrist, and didn't have to admit any wrongdoing.

Quote:

Too small. Google won't even notice 22.5 million. 2.25 billion would be a bit better. We need to make it clear that privacy is not a minor issue.

How about 22.5 billion, with mandatory prison time, with forced public apology? Maybe then they'll take privacy a bit more seriously.

Clearly judging by most comments here, no one used their brain on reading up on the issues. You could read the articles but then again, why when you can just hate instead. After 3 articles already on this, it's clear that even if all 20 safari users were paid a billion dollars each for their cookie from facebook being set, they'd still bitch.

Clearly judging by most comments here, no one used their brain on reading up on the issues. You could read the articles but then again, why when you can just hate instead. After 3 articles already on this, it's clear that even if all 20 safari users were paid a billion dollars each for their cookie from facebook being set, they'd still bitch.

Ad nauseaum.

Wait until it happens to Chrome, firefox or whatever then the bitching will really start.

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

A lot is wrong with targeted ads. The big deal is that Google purposely exploited a hole in Safari in order to track them to make money for advertisers without asking for consent, and all they got was a slap on the wrist, and didn't have to admit any wrongdoing.

"A lot is wrong with targeted ads."

Such as?

Everyone can agree that exploiting loopholes is objectionable, but I'm not understanding why Google collecting data is so wrong (even when it's 100% apparent they're doing it). What do targeted ads hurt?

Again, I'm not implying they don't hurt anything at all. I'd really like to hear a compelling case on this.

So much Google hate in these comments! I'd like to point out two things here:

1. Nobody was harmed by this.2. Only Safari users were affected, and who cares about those losers anyway?

How do you know to both statements?

Because Internet!

Ok we didn't know about the Safari hack before we knew, that means it wasn't on the internet. The hack or similar hack could be going on now, and we don't know until someone discovers it.We don't know if it was only Safari owners again we don't know until we know.Sounding like Donald Rumsfeld now.

Again, I'm not asking rhetorically, and not attempting to be an apologist. But what's the big deal?

A lot is wrong with targeted ads. The big deal is that Google purposely exploited a hole in Safari in order to track them to make money for advertisers without asking for consent, and all they got was a slap on the wrist, and didn't have to admit any wrongdoing.

"A lot is wrong with targeted ads."

Such as?

Everyone can agree that exploiting loopholes is objectionable, but I'm not understanding why Google collecting data is so wrong (even when it's 100% apparent they're doing it). What do targeted ads hurt?

Again, I'm not implying they don't hurt anything at all. I'd really like to hear a compelling case on this.

Well if someone was following you about taking notes on where you where going, etc I think you might be concerned.If they told people what they were doing and said do you mind if we do this fair enough, it's the deceitful way they did it.

This only applied to people who opted-in to Google tracking them, which is defaulted off.

So Google only violated the users's browser's security settings when the user was logged into their Google account and their account was set to track.

The Safari do-not-track was defaulted on. from a developer's point of view, the user explicitly stated that they wanted to be tracked, but their default browser settings was set to disable it. The developer mentality to to fix the "feature" by finding away around the issue.

The proper "fix" should have been to detect this situation and warn the user that their Safari settings would break the feature that they opted into.

Of the two major (Apple & Google) companies that have their technology act together, I'm *far* more wary of Google than Apple. Apple may like to present the user with "here's this thing. It's cool. You'll like it. No you can't do that", but Google's regard for its users is akin to the wolf's regard for the sheep. They're a food-source, and if it comes down to "us or them", Google's answer is a resounding "not us" (with prejudice). That's very much an evil^W^W a dangerous position for the world's most pre-eminent search engine company to take.

Simon.

I have no problem with being used as food. The company is less likely to poison MY food because of that. Apple on the other hand knows their user base will eat anything they put out and has no problems putting out crap because of it.

As for Google being Evil. Apple has done more harm to the tech industry in the last 7 years then Google has ever done. Frankly as far as I'm concerned Apple now is worse then Microsoft ever was.

Collecting data isn't wrong if it's made clear they're doing it. But many, if not most, people don't realize that Google collects their data. Say a 13 year old uses his/her computer, and uses Google as his/her primary search engine. That child certainly doesn't know that Google is essentially selling him/her to advertisers, and especially doesn't know that Google is exploiting browser holes to do so.

Of course this also applies to Facebook and many other companies as well, but the article is about Google.

Quote:

Apple on the other hand knows their user base will eat anything they put out and has no problems putting out crap because of it.

Collecting data isn't wrong if it's made clear they're doing it. But many, if not most, people don't realize that Google collects their data. Say a 13 year old uses his/her computer, and uses Google as his/her primary search engine. That child certainly doesn't know that Google is essentially selling him/her to advertisers, and especially doesn't know that Google is exploiting browser holes to do so.

Of course this also applies to Facebook and many other companies as well, but the article is about Google.

Quote:

Apple on the other hand knows their user base will eat anything they put out and has no problems putting out crap because of it.

Apple kick Google out they make a mobile OS check, they make hardware check, they are a parasitic competitor check, kicking them out isn't happening fast enough (they will do it again its only a matter of time).